SEE is a language... It's English...

Status
Not open for further replies.
WOAH. I am new to the boards and I read this stuff for two hours.

I don't think CSign is audist. I think she is worried about a Deaf child falling behind in an English speaking (and hearing) world. This is a legit concern, and I think we can all agree on that.

But what she DOES about that concern is...a hot topic, to say the least.

I think she wants her son to be able to communicate. Having a LANGUAGE in the linguistics sense isn't synonymous with communication, but I'm going to assume that their household has a language - it's not just SEE, but there's written English + the family dynamic + whatever fillers they use to communicate. ASL is a natural language. English is a natural language. SEE is not - it is an artificial language. That's the problem with using SEE only, but I'm happy to hear that you are 100 per cent behind a bilingual household.

I'm interested to see his creative writing skills, actually. I think she saw the need for language and she tried to address it the best she could. She's teaching her son a way to communicate in a language she knows, and it sounds like she's learning ASL. And since ASL has nothing to do with English, I can understand how SEE sounds useful to help "teach" phonological awareness (which is a requirement of hearing kids when they learn to read).

If she had been using Cued Speech, would you guys have been this mad?

CSign, I think your son needs exposure to ASL...now. More of it. Every day. All the time. And maybe find some people in your community that can act as 'mentors'? Signing intermediate ASL is great - start there.

If he is reading at a second grade level, he is a "reader" now. (Assuming your curriculum is on par ?) At this point, he should be able to improve his reading and English skills using those building blocks. When he struggles, you can use SEE - and ASL - to help. It is going to be VERY hard for a dhh child to learn written language (basically, a human invention) without phonemic awareness OR a complete language system to build upon.

My son is six and he jabbers with me all day long...I can't imagine if I had tried to talk to him in, say, Spanish only (a language in which I am competent, but not fluent). I would have lost so much. :(

If he had been born deaf, I would have got my ass back in ASL classes! I definitely would have worried about (written) English communication, though. Written English is more academic than spoken English, but it isn't unintelligible.

I think that the hh/d community on these boards (or what I read) IS very blunt, BUT it just comes across a lot different to someone with hearing, because when we communicate online, we make inferences based on speech patterns, and our "inner voice" can "hear" the words and sometimes they can convey the wrong tone.

And when you (hh/d) read hearing people's speech, you obviously make your own assumptions about THEIR context, and since this is not a group of hearing people with the same verbal language, it's gonna be 100x easier to read people wrong.


*curious: SEE is used in Singapore by the Deaf community...it's the ONLY sign language they use. So do you think they have weaker communication skills? Underdeveloped language?*
 
jillio said:
No, it doesn't come down to semantics. It comes down to linguistic criteria of what constitutes a language.

SEE does not maintain all of the visual components of ASL. It does not maintain the syntax of a language intended to be processed visually. It does not maintain the integrity of concept or of symbolic sign.

SEE does not achieve the same result as ASL. In fact, it has been shown through much research that it acutually provides a confusing linguistic environment. And of course there are ways that are superior for accomplishing a specific goal. That holds true for everything.

It is acceptable as a tool in teaching a child English. However, that does not make it a language. That makes it a tool for teaching a specific language, the same as writing is a tool for teaching a specific language. Neither one are languages. They are modes of a specific language.
ASL is intended for communication purposes, and it fulfills all the requirements for communication unassisted by any other language. SEE is intended for teaching and instructing, not for communication.
Click to expand...

Oh, that makes sense, totally. Thanks for the input, Jillio. I guess I understood why you seemed a kind of puzzled about my using SEE while reading any book I read in the other thread, especially my signing in SEE in my head.
 
You can go on about this from thread to thread but in the end, as long as Csign has a way to communicate with her child that is all that matters... I know the feeling of not being able to communicate with your child it is very frustrating my first mode of communication was not ASL it was picture boards that the Autistic uses.. Pointing... Intense Speech therapy then after 2 years and all of that none of it worked and someone told me to try to teach him ASL get him an interpretor that could teach him so I did ... His interpretor was a Deaf male not oral at all Honestly, i didnt think It would work but it did... IN the end no matter what you use as a communication tool to communicate with your child it doesnt matter as long as you understand eachother..
 
AandEMomma said:
You can go on about this from thread to thread but in the end, as long as Csign has a way to communicate with her child that is all that matters... I know the feeling of not being able to communicate with your child it is very frustrating my first mode of communication was not ASL it was picture boards that the Autistic uses.. Pointing... Intense Speech therapy then after 2 years and all of that none of it worked and someone told me to try to teach him ASL get him an interpretor that could teach him so I did ... His interpretor was a Deaf male not oral at all Honestly, i didnt think It would work but it did... IN the end no matter what you use as a communication tool to communicate with your child it doesnt matter as long as you understand eachother..
Click to expand...

It matters. I communicated great with my family. After you get out in the world , it matters a lot.
 
Klingon is more of a real language than SEE ever will be.
 
AandEMomma said:
You can go on about this from thread to thread but in the end, as long as Csign has a way to communicate with her child that is all that matters... I know the feeling of not being able to communicate with your child it is very frustrating my first mode of communication was not ASL it was picture boards that the Autistic uses.. Pointing... Intense Speech therapy then after 2 years and all of that none of it worked and someone told me to try to teach him ASL get him an interpretor that could teach him so I did ... His interpretor was a Deaf male not oral at all Honestly, i didnt think It would work but it did... IN the end no matter what you use as a communication tool to communicate with your child it doesnt matter as long as you understand eachother..
Click to expand...

When I see a parent get defensive about using SEE with the child, it bothers me for some reason. It would bother me to see a parent defending the policy of physically beating lessons into the child, but hey, if it works...It is just my opinion, mind you, but the psychological scars will be the same.
 
It matters when you get out in the real world but to start with a communication method for a child it doesnt as long as you learn something else everyone else is using so that child can make friends.... but for starters what ever works
 
IN my eyes SEE is confusing

ALL I AM SAYING is that if Csign wants to use that to teach her child language then its a window and something that works for her

Personally...
I wouldnt use it because I'd want to start with a tool that could be used for a life time not temperary
 
AandEMomma said:
IN my eyes SEE is confusing

ALL I AM SAYING is that if Csign wants to use that to teach her child language then its a window and something that works for her

Personally...
I wouldnt use it because I'd want to start with a tool that could be used for a life time not temperary
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is all we are saying. Many of us still harbor resentment at being denied that chance.
 
All of us as parent teach our child differently and its not up to me to tell a parent they are wrong I am not that person and will NEVER disagree with what that parent does for THEIR child but for MINE i think differently and I stand on my decidion but, sometimes I will ask for advice from others..

Csign's decidion to teach her child SEE was her decidion and since it works support that it worked and shes teaching her child ASL not everyone agrees with what you choose for your child there are always going to be people that think what your doing is wrong
 
AandEMomma said:
All of us as parent teach our child differently and its not up to me to tell a parent they are wrong I am not that person and will NEVER disagree with what that parent does for THEIR child but for MINE i think differently and I stand on my decidion but, sometimes I will ask for advice from others..

Csign's decidion to teach her child SEE was her decidion and since it works support that it worked and shes teaching her child ASL not everyone agrees with what you choose for your child there are always going to be people that think what your doing is wrong
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that she cant use SEE with her child but saying that it is a language and that it is English is what most of us disagree with. Then, the defensiveness started.
 
shel90 said:
Nobody is saying that she cant use SEE with her child but saying that it is a language and that it is English is what most of us disagree with. Then, the defensiveness started.
Click to expand...

When I first found how to what degree hearing parents would ignore the experience of the deaf, I was shocked. But now I am jaded. It is sad.
 
Here's the big picture the people here are not getting. Language development is crucial within the first five years of the child's life. ASL is a complete language, and should be taught prior to turning five. SEE is a limited version of the English language and the child often lags behind because they don't have complete access to it.
 
Person A thinks that Person B is doing something wrong to their child, but Person A doesn't say anything because 1) it's not bad enough for Person A to speak out. 2) it's not bad enough to to try to deny the parent's right to do whatever they want to the child. 3) it doesn't infringe the child's rights enough.

Some people here believe that teaching a child SEE is bad enough to speak out.
 
I'm surprised to see this topic resurrected, given that it's been beaten to a pulp on the forum many times over, and yet it's being treated as though the OP is just opening with this now. She acknowledged in this same thread many months ago that although referring to SEE as a mode of English was accurate, it couldn't be used as a full language or communication tool in itself, but rather as a teaching aid in developing her child's reading ability and building a vocabulary.

We don't use SEE ourselves -- my daughter has full access to English (in addition to ASL), so we don't have the gap many deaf kids have when it comes to learning to read and write a language they've never been exposed to in any other mode.

But I've seen Deaf teachers who use ASL as a primary language advise the use of a bridge such as SEE or SSE when teaching a primarily ASL-using child how to read and write English. I've asked about this outright of several Deaf professionals, and apparently they did not get the "all Deaf are against SEE" message. And I've heard from Deaf individuals who grew up learning SEE and found it to be a positive factor in both their learning of English and their later transition to ASL. Since participating on this forum, I've also heard from many who are very much against the use of SEE. But when you claim that this parent isn't listening to the Deaf, you aren't entirely accurate -- it just depends upon which Deaf you are referring to.

And although I've seen strong reasoning elsewhere that helped me decide one way or the other, it sure doesn't look as though those who were strenuously against were very persuasive in their arguments here -- offensive and dismissive, yes, but not very constructive in their discussion of why the objectives of SEE might be better served via another method.
 
GrendelQ said:
I'm surprised to see this topic resurrected, given that it's been beaten to a pulp on the forum many times over, and yet it's being treated as though the OP is just opening with this now. She acknowledged in this same thread many months ago that although referring to SEE as a mode of English was accurate, it couldn't be used as a full language or communication tool in itself, but rather as a teaching aid in developing her child's reading ability and building a vocabulary.

We don't use SEE ourselves -- my daughter has full access to English (in addition to ASL), so we don't have the gap many deaf kids have when it comes to learning to read and write a language they've never been exposed to in any other mode.

But I've seen Deaf teachers who use ASL as a primary language advise the use of a bridge such as SEE or SSE when teaching a primarily ASL-using child how to read and write English. I've asked about this outright of several Deaf professionals, and apparently they did not get the "all Deaf are against SEE" message. And I've heard from Deaf individuals who grew up learning SEE and found it to be a positive factor in both their learning of English and their later transition to ASL. Since participating on this forum, I've also heard from many who are very much against the use of SEE. But when you claim that this parent isn't listening to the Deaf, you aren't entirely accurate -- it just depends upon which Deaf you are referring to.

And although I've seen strong reasoning elsewhere that helped me decide one way or the other, it sure doesn't look as though those who were strenuously against were very persuasive in their arguments here -- offensive and dismissive, yes, but not very constructive in their discussion of why the objectives of SEE might be better served via another method.
Click to expand...

Could that be from seeing only what you want to see?
I have seen both sides in here.
 
Allow me to assist you here:

GrendelQ said:
I'm surprised to see this topic resurrected, given that it's been beaten to a pulp on the forum many times over, and yet it's being treated as though the OP is just opening with this now. She acknowledged in this same thread many months ago that although referring to SEE as a mode of English was accurate, it couldn't be used as a full language or communication tool in itself, but rather as a teaching aid in developing her child's reading ability and building a vocabulary.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't be surprised, given what is going on the forum in the recent days.
GrendelQ said:
We don't use SEE ourselves -- my daughter has full access to English (in addition to ASL), so we don't have the gap many deaf kids have when it comes to learning to read and write a language they've never been exposed to in any other mode.
Click to expand...
So I had gaps when I was learning to read and write a language?? These without CI's??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Might want to check yourself there, buddy.
GrendelQ said:
But I've seen Deaf teachers who use ASL as a primary language advise the use of a bridge such as SEE or SSE when teaching a primarily ASL-using child how to read and write English. I've asked about this outright of several Deaf professionals, and apparently they did not get the "all Deaf are against SEE" message. And I've heard from Deaf individuals who grew up learning SEE and found it to be a positive factor in both their learning of English and their later transition to ASL. Since participating on this forum, I've also heard from many who are very much against the use of SEE. But when you claim that this parent isn't listening to the Deaf, you aren't entirely accurate -- it just depends upon which Deaf you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Now you're labeling who is which Deaf?
GrendelQ said:
And although I've seen strong reasoning elsewhere that helped me decide one way or the other, it sure doesn't look as though those who were strenuously against were very persuasive in their arguments here -- offensive and dismissive, yes, but not very constructive in their discussion of why the objectives of SEE might be better served via another method.
Click to expand...

Might want to read up again.

All in all, I take offense in this post.
 
posts from hell said:
Allow me to assist you here:


You shouldn't be surprised, given what is going on the forum in the recent days.

So I had gaps when I was learning to read and write a language?? These without CI's??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Might want to check yourself there, buddy.

Now you're labeling who is which Deaf?


Might want to read up again.

All in all, I take offense in this post.
Click to expand...

The more things change, the more they remain the same. Hearing parents.
 
Just so it is out there... I view these who support and DEFEND others using SEE as these also support using ebonics to teach proper English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top